Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Part I
by Thomas Ice
One of the most important prophecy passages in the whole Bible is that of God’s
prophecy given to Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27. This passage constitutes one of the most
amazing prophecies in all the Bible. If worked out logically, this text is both seminal
and determinative in the outworking of one’s understanding of Bible prophecy.
Especially for those of us who believe that prophecy should be understood literally,
it is essential that a right understanding of this central text be developed and
cultivated. Thus, with this article, I am beginning a series that examines Daniel’s
prophecy for the purpose of providing a consistently literal interpretation of the
passage.
Enemies of Literal Interpretation
Critics of the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy must strike down the plain
meaning of Daniel’s prophecy in their failed attempts to strike down the prophetic
precision found in biblical prophecy. Critic, Gary DeMar declares:
While nearly all Bible scholars agree that the first sixty-nine
weeks of Daniel’s prophecy refer to the time up to Jesus’
crucifixion, only dispensationalists [literal interpreters like
myself, T.D.I.] believe that the entire seventieth week is yet to
be fulfilled. Without a futurized seventieth week, the
dispensationalist system falls apart. There can be no
pretribulational rapture, great tribulation, or rebuilt temple
without the gap. How do dispensationalists find a gap in a text
that makes no mention of a gap?
I agree with DeMar, that much rides on Daniel’s prophecy. I hope to demonstrate in
this and coming articles that the only interpretation of Daniel’s seventy-weeks that
explains all aspects of this great prophecy is the consistently literal approach.
Should the overall approach of this prophecy be literal or allegorical? If literal, then
this would mean that the numbers should be taken literally and do count. Yet some
think that numbers don’t count.
This facilitates the adoption of the symbolical interpretation of
the numbers, which, . . . we regard as the only possible one,
because it does not necessitate our changing the seventy years
of the exile into years of the restoration of Jerusalem, and
placing the seven years, which the text presents as the first
period of the seventy weeks, last.
Harry Bultema observes:
The angel himself gives a literal explanation and it would be
nonsensical to insist on giving a symbolical interpretation of a
literal explanation. If the exegetes had always obeyed the
angel’s interpretation as is evident from practically every word
he speaks, then this text would never have been so obscured by
all kinds of human conjectures and imagined "deep" insights.
Reasons For Literal Numbers
There are solid reasons why the numbers in Daniel’s prophecy should be taken
literally. First, chapter 9 opens with Daniel realizing from Jeremiah’s writings that
Israel’s captivity would last 70 years. These were literal years. Since the prophecy
delivered by Gabriel to Daniel in 9:24-27 is related to the 70-year captivity, it
follows that the 70 weeks of years are equally literal. Second, since definite numbers
are used in the prophecy (7, 62, and 1 weeks), it would be strange indeed for such
odd numbers to not have literal meaning. Leon Wood asks, "Why should definite
numbers be applied to periods of indefinite lengths?" Nothing in the context
suggests a non-literal use of numbers in this prophecy.
Setting the Context
We know from the beginning of chapter 9 (verse 2) that Daniel had read about "the
number of years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the
prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years."
The two passages which Daniel surely studied were Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10-14.
Both texts clearly speak of Israel’s Babylonian captivity as limited to a 70-year
period. Both passages also blend into their texts, statements that look forward to a
time of ultimate fulfillment and blessing for the nation of Israel. This is why Daniel
appears to think that when the nation returns to their land, then ultimate blessing
(the millennial kingdom) will coincide with their return. Daniel’s errant thinking
about the timing of God’s plan for Israel occasioned the Lord’s sending of Gabriel
"to give you insight with understanding" (Dan. 9:22).
God was not yet ready to bring history to its destined final climax. Thus, He told
Daniel that He was going stretch out history by seventy times seven years (i.e., 490
years). Dr. David Cooper wrote the following paraphrase that I think accurately
captures the sense of the passage:
Daniel, you have been thinking that the final restoration will be
accomplished and the full covenant blessings will be realized at
the close of these seventy years of exile in Babylon. On this
point you are mistaken. You are not now on the eve of the
fulfillment of this wonderful prediction. Instead of its being
brought to pass at this time, I am sent to inform you that there
is decreed upon your people and the Holy City a period of
"seventy sevens" of years before they can be realized. At the
conclusion of this period of 490 years the nation of Israel will be
reconciled and will be reinstated into the divine favor and will
enter into the enjoyment of all the covenant blessings.
The Meaning of "Weeks"
One of the Hebrew classes I took while a student at Dallas Theological Seminary
was called "Exegesis of Old Testament Problem Passages," taught by Dr. Kenneth
Barker. Dr. Barker thought that Daniel 9:24-27 had more problems for an interpreter
to solve than any other passage in the entire Old Testament. Dr. Barker did not
mean by the term "problem" that these made the text unknowable, but that an item
was difficult and required great care and skill to determine the meaning. He
thought that there were 14 problems that an interpreter needed to solve in order to
correctly understand the passage. The first issue that needs to be dealt with was the
meaning of the term "weeks," found at the beginning of verse 24.
For those aquatinted with Hebrew, they will notice that the same word appears
twice at the beginning of verse 24. That twice used word is "sâbu‘îm," meaning
"seventy sevens." This Hebrew word appears first as a plural noun, followed by the
participle form, functioning as an adjective. That this Hebrew phrase should be
rendered as "seventy sevens," is unanimously agreed upon by representatives of all
interpretative schools. There is also great consensus that the "seventy sevens" refers
to years, since this is what Daniel was contemplating in Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10-14,
as evident in Daniel 9:2. Thus, our Lord has in mind seventy weeks of years, or 490
years.
The next word appearing in the Hebrew text in verse 24 is a verb translated "have
been decreed." This word appears only here in the entire Old Testament. This verb
has the basic meaning of "cut," "cut off," and came to mean "divide," or "determine."
It appears that Gabriel choose this unique word to emphasis that God was carefully
choosing or determining the length of Israel’s history. "Just as a wise person never
cuts or snips at random, the Lord as the all-wise God does so even less. All His
works are determined form eternity, and the times also are only in His hands."
Wood adds, "The thought is that God had cut off these 490 years from the rest of
history through which to accomplish the deliverances needed for Israel." G. H. Lang
declares:
Decreed means divided or severed off from the whole period of
world-empire in the hands of the Gentiles, as to which Daniel
was already well informed. It points to a fixed and limited
period, of definite duration, forming part of a longer period the
duration of which is not fixed, or at least not declared.
Daniel’s People and City
For whom did God reveal this period of prophetic destiny? The text says that they
have been decreed "for your people and your holy city." This is such an obvious
statement, yet too many interpreters attempt to shoehorn in a people not mentioned
in the passage. In the sixth century b.c., when Daniel wrote, who were Daniel’s
people and holy city? Clearly it can only refer to Israel as Daniel’s people and
Jerusalem as Daniel’s holy city. Yet many interpreters insist that it means something
more, something different than what the text actually says. For instance, H. C.
Leupold says, "Here, as so often in prophecy, terms like God’s "people" and God’s
"holy city" broaden out to the point where they assume a breadth of meaning like
that found in the New Testament (cf. Gal. 6:16)." Another non-literalist, E. J. Young,
says, "It is true that the primary reference is to Israel after the flesh, and the
historical Jerusalem, but since this very vs. describes the Messianic work, it also
refers to the true people of God, those who will benefit because of the things herein
described."
Notice that both allegorizers appeal to reasons that are outside of the text. They just
believe that it refers to individuals beyond Israel because that’s what they believe.
Therefore, the text must have in mind some beyond what it actually does say. This
is a clear example of reading meaning into the text from one’s own belief system,
which is not what the Bible wants us to do. Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 4:6, "that in
us you might learn not to exceed what is written." Gabriel goes out of his way to
inform Daniel that the seventy weeks of years are decree for Israel and Jerusalem.
Lang notes, "The endeavour to apply this prophecy, in general or in detail, to others
than Daniel’s people, Israel, and Daniel’s city, Jerusalem, is an outrage upon
exegesis, being forbidden in advance by the express terms used." Gabriel says that
God has specifically cut away those 490 years for Israel and Jerusalem, which
would not include the addition of anyone else. Wood expands upon this idea and
notes:
It should be noted that Gabriel said the 490 years will be in
reference to the Jewish people and the Jewish capital city,
which would seem to exclude any direct concern with Gentiles.
That this concern is to be with the city, as well as the people,
militates against the idea that the 490 years carry reference only
to Christ’s first coming and not to His second. It is difficult to
see how the physical city of Jerusalem was involved in the
deliverance from sin which Christ then effected but it will be in
the deliverance from the destructive oppression which the
Antichrist will bring prior to Christ’s second coming.
In my next installment I will examine the six purposes stated in the second half of
verse 24.
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
Part III
by Thomas Ice
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
"Let the postmillennial and amillennial commentators look long and steadily at this
fact. This prophecy is a prophecy for Daniel’s people and Daniel’s city. No alchemy
of Origenistic spiritualizing interpretation can change that."
Daniel 9:25 provides the starting point for the chronological unfolding of the
seventy weeks prophecy. But, at what point does the text tell us it was to begin?
Since there are different views concerning the beginning point (sometimes know by
the Latin phrase "terminus a quo"), I will provide an in-depth examination of this
issue.
The Terminus a Quo of the Seventy Weeks
Examination of Daniel 9:25 should start with a reading of the text to make sure that
this passage is foremost in our mind.
So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the
Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be
built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
Gabriel tells Daniel that he is "to know and discern" the message that follows. The
Hebrew word for "know" is a common word for knowledge or information.
However, "discern" has the notion of "to gain insight," "comprehension," or "to
reach understanding." Thus, Daniel was to learn "from the issuing of a decree to
restore and rebuild Jerusalem," that the seventy weeks of years would begin their
countdown. Why Gabriel’s exhortation to Daniel? "The history of the interpretation
of these verses is confirmation of the fact that this prophecy is difficult and requires
spiritual discernment."
A Decree to Restore and Rebuild Jerusalem
The next element of Daniel 9:25 is clear. The countdown of time will begin with "a
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." The Hebrew word for decree is the
common word "dâbâr" which means "thing," "speak," "word," or "instruction." In
this context, it has the force of an urgent and assertive statement or decree.
The text is specific that the countdown will start with "a decree to restore and
rebuild Jerusalem." The decree involves the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, not
the Temple. This is important since earlier edicts were issued in relation to the
Temple (see 2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; 5:3-17; 6:3-5). There are at least three
different decrees that are considered in an attempt to "know and discern" the
beginning of the seventy weeks of Daniel.
First, there was the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5), issued in 537 b.c., which I will
call decree one. Second, the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) given in 458 b.c.,
(decree two). Third, a second decree from Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:5-8, 17, 18) given in
444 b.c., at the time of Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem, (decree three). I want to note
at the outset of the examination of these possibilities that the third decree is the only
one that literally fits the exact words of Daniel 9:25, as we shall see. Leon Wood
notes that the "first stressed rebuilding the Temple; the second, the establishment
and practice of the proper services at the Temple; and the third, the rebuilding of
the walls, when, long before, most of the city had been rebuilt."
Non-literal interpreters of the 490 years of the seventy weeks of Daniel are vague
and non-precise in their overall handling of the numbers. If they try to establish a
terminus a quo, it is rarely, if ever, the one given to Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2:1-8.
For example, preterist, Gary DeMar, is fuzzy, at best, in explaining his beginning
point for the prophecy. In a lengthy quote of J. Barton Payne, DeMar appears, at
first, to favor our view when he says: "The beginning point would be indicated by
the commandment to restore Jerusalem (v. 25), an event that was accomplished, a
century after Daniel, in the reign of the Persian, Artaxerxes I (465-424 b.c.), under
Nehemiah (444 b.c.)." He then proceeds to say that he favors the second view noted
above, of Artaxerxes’ first decree (Ezra 7:11-26) which was issued in 458 b.c. DeMar
declares that "from 458 b.c. this brings one to a.d. 26, the very time which many
would accept for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus Christ and the
commencement of His incarnate ministry."
Like DeMar, fellow preterist, Kenneth Gentry, is likewise vague, perhaps on
purpose, as to the start of the 490 years. Like DeMar, Gentry also references J.
Barton Payne, but without specifically stating his terminus a quo. Also, like DeMar,
Gentry holds that the 483-year period comes to its end at the beginning of Jesus’
public ministry, "sometime around a.d. 26." Gentry’s support for his view does not
come from providing biblical data to persuade. Instead, he says, "This
interpretation is quite widely agreed upon by conservative scholars, being virtually
‘universal among Christian exegetes’—excluding dispensationalists." In contrast to
Gentry and DeMar, I will present reasons from the biblical text for holding that the
correct starting point is the decree from Artaxerxes given in 444 b.c. as recorded in
Nehemiah 2:1-8.
Artaxerxes’ Decree
It is clear to me that of all the options available, the only decree that specifically fits
the statements of Daniel 9:25 is the one by Artaxerxes given in 444 b.c. as recorded
in Nehemiah 2:1-8. Why? Because decree one and two relate to rebuilding the
Temple. Only decree three speaks specifically of Jerusalem. It is clear that
Nehemiah received a decree to "rebuild and restore Jerusalem" from King
Artaxerxes. The passage says, "let letters be given me . . ." and "a letter to Asaph . . ."
(Neh. 2:7-8). These letters were permission being given by King Artaxerxes to
Nehemiah for permission and authority to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild it. Said
another way, the letters are decrees and they granted Nehemiah the right to rebuild
Jerusalem (Neh. 2:5). "The entire book of Nehemiah is proof that this godly
governor built Jerusalem and its streets and walls," declares Harry Bultema, "and
that, as this prophecy says, in troublous times. According to qualified chronologists
this also agrees with the needed chronology set forth in Daniel."
Problems with Decrees One and Two
Further examination of the first two decrees provide us with even more objections
to their being the one that Gabriel had in mind in Daniel 9:25. Dr. Harold Hoehner,
Chairman of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, has
produced one of the best works on the chronological aspects of the seventy weeks
of Daniel in his book Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Dr. Hoehner provides
the following objections against the first decree as the one that fulfills Daniel 9:25:
First, Cyrus’ edict refers to the rebuilding of the temple and not
to the city. . . .
Second, a distinction should be made between the rebuilding of
a city and the restoration of a city to its former state. . . . The
commencement of the rebuilding began with Cyrus’ decree but
the city’s complete restoration was not at that time.
Third, if one accepts the seventy weeks as beginning with
Cyrus’ decree, how does one reckon the 490 years? . . . the final
week would be divided into two parts, the first half covering
the life of Christ and going even until the destruction of the
temple in a.d. 70, a period of thirty-five to seventy years (about
ten to twenty years for each week), and the second half of the
seventieth week would have not terminus ad quem. . . . it seems
that this system makes havoc of Gabriel’s sayings, which were
rather specific.
Dr. Hoehner demonstrates that the second decree option does not fare any better
than the first. He notes the following objections:
First, and foremost, is that this decree has not a word about the
rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem but rather the temple in
Jerusalem. . . .
Second, to have the sixty-nine weeks terminate at the
commencement of Christ’s ministry in a.d. 26 or 27 is untenable
for two reasons: (1) The cutting off of the Messiah (Dan. 9:26 is
a very inappropriate way to refer to the descent of the Holy
Spirit upon Jesus at the commencement of His ministry. (2) The
date for the beginning of Jesus’ ministry is not a.d. 26 or 27 but
a.d. 29, as discussed previously.
Third, to what does Daniel refer in 9:27 when he states he is
confirming a covenant? If it refers to Christ, then what
covenant was it and how did He break it?
Fourth, to say that the middle of the seventieth week refers to
Christ’s crucifixion in a.d. 30 is untenable on two grounds: (1)
the sacrifices did not cease at Christ’s crucifixion, and (2)
though the date of a.d. 30 is possible the a.d. 33 date is far more
plausible.
Fifth, to say that the end of the seventieth week refers to
Stephen’s death and Paul’s conversion in a.d. 33 is pure
speculation. There is no hint of this in the texts of Daniel 9:27
and Acts 8—9 to denote the fulfillment of the seventieth week.
Also, the dates of Paul’s conversion as well as Stephen’s
martyrdom were more likely in a.d. 35.
In conclusion, the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 b.c.
serving as the starting point of the seventy weeks is highly
unlikely.
Conclusion
The third decree is clearly the beginning point for the countdown of the seventy
weeks of Daniel. Dr. Hoehner provides the following arguments in support of the
final decree as the terminus a quo as recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8:
First, there is a direct reference to the restoration of the city (2:3,
5) and of the city gates and walls (2:3, 8). Second, Artaxerxes
wrote a letter to Asaph to give materials to be used specifically
for the walls (2:8). Third, the book of Nehemiah and Ezra 4:7-23
indicate that certainly the restoration of the walls was done in
the most distressing circumstances, as predicted by Daniel
(Dan. 9:25). Fourth, no later decrees were given by the Persian
kings pertaining to the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
In this article I was able to demonstrate that the third decree is surely the starting
point for the countdown of Daniel’s seventy weeks. In my next installment, I hope
to build upon this fact that the exact date of this decree can be determined as March
5, 444 b.c. This provides a solid plank in developing a literal interpretation of
Gabriel’s great prophecy to Daniel. Maranatha!
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
I believe that I demonstrated in my previous article that the starting point for the
Daniel 9:25 prophecy was the decree of Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:5-8, 17, 18) to rebuild
Jerusalem. In this article, I hope to show that the decree was given to Nehemiah on
March 5, 444 b.c.
The passage under discussion reads as follows:
"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the
Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be
built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
(Dan. 9:25)
Because there is no need to reinvent the wheel, I want to approach this issue by
presenting the two best statements on this matter. First, I will look at Sir Robert
Anderson’s masterful presentation in The Coming Prince. Then, I will present Dr.
Harold Hoehner’s insightful refinement of Anderson’s basic position from
Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ.
Sir Robert Anderson
Sir Robert Anderson, a British Brethren, developed a chronology that used a 360-
day year, that he called a "prophetic year." Anderson bases this upon the Jewish
calendar and the clear implication that the prophetic timetable of Daniel was
derived from it as well (i.e., 42 months = 1260 days). Anderson began the 483-year
countdown with Artaxerxes’ decree that he said was March 14, 445 b.c. (Nisan 1,
445 b.c.) and it culminates in Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem on April 6, a.d.
32 (Nisan 10, a.d. 32). Here is Anderson’s explanation:
. . . According to the Jewish custom, our Lord went up to
Jerusalem on the 8th Nisan, which, as we know, fell that year
upon a Friday. And having spent the Sabbath at Bethany, He
entered the Holy City the following day, as recorded in the
Gospels. The Julian date of that 10th Nisan was Sunday the 6th
of April, a.d. 32. What then was the length of the period
intervening between the issuing of the decree to rebuild
Jerusalem and this public advent of "Messiah the Prince"—
between the 14th of March, b.c. 445 and the 6th of April a.d. 32
(when He entered into Jerusalem)? THE INTERVAL WAS
EXACTLY AND TO THE VERY DAY 173,880 DAYS, OR
SEVEN TIMES SIXTY-NINE PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360
DAYS).
From b.c. 445 to a.d. 32 is 476 years = 173,740 days (476 x 365) +
116 days for leap years. And from 14th March to 6th April,
reckoned inclusively according to Jewish practice is 24 days.
But 173,740 + 116 + 24 = 173,880. And 69 x 7 x 360 = 173,880.
It must be borne in mind here that in reckoning years from b.c.
to a.d. one year must always be omitted; for, of course, the
interval between b.c. I and a.d. 1 is not two years but one year.
In fact, b.c. 1 ought to be called b.c. 0; and it is so described by
astronomers, with whom b.c. 445 is—444. And again, as the
Julian year is 11 m. 10.46 s., or about the 129th part of a day,
longer than the mean solar year, the Julian calendar has three
leap years too many in every four centuries. This error is
corrected by the Gregorian reform, which reckons three secular
years out of four as common years. For instance, 1700, 1800,
and 1900 were common years, and 2000 will be a leap year.
As valuable as Anderson’s work continues to be, I believe that it does contain a few
errors, even though this overall approach was a major breakthrough in
understanding this part of Daniel’s prophecy. The needed corrections have been
pointed by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary.
Harold Hoehner
Dr. Hoehner has questioned the starting and ending times put forth by Anderson.
Hoehner advocates the time of Artaxerxes’ decree as 444 b.c. and not 445 b.c. Dr.
Hoehner explains:
The date of this decree is given in the biblical record. Nehemiah
1:1 states that Nehemiah heard of Jerusalem’s desolate
conditions in the month of Chislev (November/ December) in
Artaxerxes' twentieth year. Then later in Artaxerxes' twentieth
year in the month of Nisan (March/April) Nehemiah reports
that he was granted permission to restore the city and build its
walls (2:1). To have Nisan later than Chislev (in the same year)
may seem strange until one realizes that Nehemiah was using a
Tishri-to-Tishri (September/October) dating method rather
than the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan method. Nehemiah was
following what was used by the kings of Judah earlier in their
history. This method used by Nehemiah is confirmed by the
Jews in Elephantine who also used this method during the
same time period as Nehemiah.
Next, one needs to establish the beginning of Artaxerxes' rule.
His father Xerxes died shortly after December 17, 465 b.c. and
Artaxerxes immediately succeeded him. Since the accession-
year system was used the first year of Artaxerxes' reign
according to the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan reckoning would be
Nisan 464 to Nisan 463 and according to the Jewish Tishri-to-
Tishri reckoning would be Tishri 464 to Tishri 463. . . .
In conclusion, the report to Nehemiah (1:1) occurred in Chislev
(November/December) of 445 B.C. and the decree of
Artaxerxes (2:1) occurred in Nisan (March/April of 444 b.c.
Therefore, Nisan 444 b.c. marks the terminus ad quo of the
seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27.
Dr. Hoehner further objects to Anderson’s use of the solar year instead of the
sabbatical year. Dr. Hoehner also corrects some of Anderson’s calculations. Dr.
Hoehner spells out his difference in the following:
First, in the light of new evidence since Anderson's day, the 445
b.c. date is not acceptable for Artaxerxes' twentieth year;
instead the decree was given in Nisan, 444 b.c. Second, the a.d.
32 date for the crucifixion is untenable. It would mean that
Christ was crucified on either a Sunday or Monday. In fact,
Anderson realizes the dilemma and he has to do mathematical
gymnastics to arrive at a Friday crucifixion. This makes one
immediately suspect. Actually there is no good evidence for an
a.d. 32 crucifixion date.
In previous chapters in this book it was concluded that Christ's
crucifixion occurred on Friday, Nisan 14, in a.d. 33. Reckoning
His death according to the Julian calendar, Christ died on
Friday, April 3, a.d. 33. As discussed above, the terminus a quo
occurred in Nisan, 444 b.c. Although Nehemiah 2:1 does not
specify which day of Nisan the decree to rebuild Jerusalem
occurred, it cannot have occurred before Nisan 1. . . . it could
have occurred on some other day in Nisan.
"Using the calculating method Anderson used, Hoehner comes up with the 476
solar years. This is the difference between 444 b.c. and a.d. 33. By multiplying 476
by 365.24219879 days, comes to 173,855 days, and Hoehner states:"
This leaves only 25 days to be accounted for between 444 b.c.
and a.d. 33. By adding the 25 days to Nisan 1 or March 5 (of 444
b.c.), one comes to March 30 (of a.d. 33) which was Nisan 10 in
a.d. 33. This is the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. . . .
The terminus ad quem of the sixty-ninth week was on the day of
Christ's triumphal entry on March 30, a.d. 33.
As predicted in Zechariah 9:9, Christ presented Himself to
Israel as Messiah the king for the last time and the multitude of
the disciples shouted loudly by quoting from a messianic
psalm: "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord"
(Ps. 118:26; Matt.21:9; Mark 11:10; Luke 19:38; John 12:13). This
occurred on Monday, Nisan 10 (March 30) and only four days
later on Friday, Nisan 14, April 3, A.D. 33, Jesus was cut off or
crucified.
The seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.
When that is accomplished, Daniel's inquiry will be fully
realized for Israel will be back in her homeland with her
Messiah.
Dr. Hoehner has put together an airtight case for his understanding of the
beginning and ending of the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. Dr. John
Walvoord notes, in support of Dr. Hoehner, that "the best explanation of the time
when the sixty-nine sevens ended is that it occurred shortly before the death of
Christ anticipated in Daniel 9:26 as following the sixty-ninth seven. Practically all
expositors agree that the death of Christ occurred after the sixty-ninth seven."
Conclusion
To date, no one has been able to answer the work done by Dr. Hoehner. It is fully
supportive of the literal interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy and is the only
approach that has been demonstrated, thus far, to make the numbers work out. This
is why most all those who take this text literally have adopted Dr. Hoehner’s view.
Those taking other views, like preterists Gary DeMar and Ken Gentry, offer vague
generalities when it comes to the number of the seventy weeks prophecy.
A further value of the literal approach of Dr. Hoehner is that this prophecy
provides an exact time in which Israel’s Messiah was predicted to show up in
history. "And when He approached, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, ‘If
you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now
they have been hidden from your eyes. . . . because you did not recognize the time
of your visitation’" (Luke 19:41-42, 44). How was Israel to have known the time of
their visitation? From a literal understanding of Daniel’s prophecy. In fact, this
prophecy, along with Christ’s fulfillment of every other first coming Messianic
prophecy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah. Many
Jews have come to faith, over the years, as a result of being challenged by this
prediction about the time of Messiah’s coming. It is clear that a literal interpretation
of this passage is demanded by the text itself. Maranatha!
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
Part VII
by Thomas Ice
Last month I dealt with the starting and ending points for the first sixty-nine of
seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27). We saw that the time clock of
the seventy weeks prophecy commenced about 100 years after Daniel received its
revelation in 444 b.c. As I continue in verse 26, it is important to note that God,
through Gabriel the archangel, divides the seventy weeks into three sections: "seven
weeks," "sixty-two weeks," and "one week" (Dan. 9:27). What is the significance of
these divisions?
The Seven Weeks
Since the first seven weeks of years (49 years) is segmented from the whole, to what
does it refer to? Without belaboring this point, since it is not a point of significant
debate, this first of three segments refers to time when "it [Jerusalem] will be built
again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress" (Dan. 9:25c). This modifying
statement connects the first seven weeks with the distressing days of Ezra and
Nehemiah. Thus, the first seven weeks refer to the time of the rebuilding of
Jerusalem and the temple. Dr. John Walvoord notes:
The best explanation seems to be that beginning with
Nehemiah’s decree and the building of the wall, it took a whole
generation to clear out all the debris in Jerusalem and restore it
as a thriving city. This might well be the fulfillment of the
forty-nine years. The specific reference to streets again
addresses our attention to Nehemiah’s situation where the
streets were covered with debris and needed to be rebuilt. That
this was accomplished in troublesome times is fully
documented by the book of Nehemiah itself.
The fact that this prophecy divides the seventy weeks of years into three sections
will come into to play later when examining the single week in verse 27.
The Sixty-Two Weeks
The next segment of time is the sixty-two weeks of years that are said to follow the
first seven weeks of years. The total of the two parts equal sixty-nine weeks of years
or 483 years. The sixty-two weeks follow consecutively the first seven weeks
because there are no textual indicators or historical events that would lead to any
other conclusion. The sixty-two weeks will end with the arrival of "Messiah the
Prince." Daniel 9:25 says, "until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and
sixty-two weeks." Messiah the Prince can be none other than the Jewish Messiah—
Jesus the Christ. As was noted in the previous article, Dr. Harold Hoehner has
demonstrated that the seven and sixty-two weeks (that is sixty-nine weeks) ended
on the day of Christ’s triumphal entry. This is diagramed in the chart below, which
was adopted from Dr. Hoehner’s book. The fulfillment of the seven and sixty-two
weeks is recorded in Luke 19 as follows:
"And when He [Jesus] approached, He saw the city and wept
over it, saying, ‘If you had known in this day, even you, the
things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden
from your eyes. . . . because you did not recognize the time of
your visitation’" (Luke 19:41-42, 44).
It has been well observed by various writers that if the seventy weeks are to end
with the death of Christ and the incoming destruction of Jerusalem, it is simply
impossible—with all ingenuity expended in this direction by eminent men—to make
out an accurate fulfillment of prophecy from the dates given, for the time usually
adduced being either too long to fit with the crucifixion of Christ or too short to
extend to the destruction of Jerusalem. —George N. H. Peters
As I work my way through the various items to be tackled in the prophecy of
Daniel 9:24-27, I will continue my focus on issues related to verse 26. We saw last
time that verse 26 begins with the phrase "after the sixty-two weeks." The text goes
on to describe three things that will take place at the end of the sixty-ninth week of
years (i.e., 483 years). Therefore, in this installment, I will deal with three important
phrases in verse 26. They are: 1) "the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing," 2)
"the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary,"
and 3) "its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations
are determined."
Messiah Will Be Cut Off
All evangelical interpreters agree that the cutting off of Messiah certainly refers to
the death of Jesus. This fits perfectly into my interpretation thus far. Since the 483
years were fulfilled to the day on March 30, a.d. 33—the date of Christ’s Triumphal
Entry (Luke 19:28-40)—and Jesus was crucified four days later on April 3, a.d. 33,
then it was an event that took place after the 483 years, but not during the final
week of years. This textual point is recognized by many, including amillennialist E.
B. Pusey who says, "[N]ot in, but after those three score and two weeks, it said Messiah
shall be cut off." "As this relates to the chronology of the prophecy," notes Dr. John
Walvoord, "it makes plain that the Messiah will be living at the end of the sixty-
ninth seventh and will be cut off, or die, soon after the end of it." G. H. Pember
further explains:
Now, His crucifixion took place four days after His appearance
as the Prince—that is, four days after the close of the Four
Hundred and Eighty-third Year. Nevertheless, the prophecy
does not represent this great event as occurring in the Seven
Years which yet remained to be fulfilled. Here, then, is the
beginning of an interval, which separates the Four Hundred
and Eighty-three Years from the final Seven.
The next phrase "and have nothing," literally means "and shall have nothing." To
what does this refer? Certainly Christ gained what was intended through His
atoning death on the cross as far as paying for the sins of the world. What was it
that He came for but did not receive, especially in relationship to Israel and
Jerusalem, which is the larger context of this overall passage? It was His Messianic
Kingdom! Indeed, it will come, but not at the time in which He was cut off. Dr.
Charles Feinberg declares, "it can only mean that He did not receive the Messianic
kingdom at that time. When His own people rejected him (John 1:11), He did not
receive what rightly belonged to Him." It is because of Daniel’s people (the Jews)
rejection of Jesus as their Messiah that the Kingdom could come in. The coming of
the Kingdom requires acceptance of Jesus as Messiah in order for it to be
established in Jerusalem. The Kingdom will arrive by the time the final week is
brought to fruition. Since Israel’s kingdom has not yet arrived, this means it is
future to our day. Therefore, we have just seen another reason why the final week
of years is also future to our day.
The Prince Who Is To Come
Identity of the prince who is to come is a matter of considerable debate and
discussion. The full statement says, "the people of the prince who is to come will
destroy the city and the sanctuary." Perhaps the best way to determine the identity
of this prince is to first look at what he is prophesied to do at his arrival upon the
stage of history. The people of this coming prince will destroy the city, clearly a
reference to Jerusalem because of the overall context, and also the sanctuary. What
sanctuary was there in Jerusalem? It could be nothing else other than the Jewish
temple. Has the city and the temple been destroyed? Yes! Jerusalem and the temple
were destroyed in a. d. 70 by the Romans. This cannot be a reference to a future
time, since, as Dr. Walvoord notes, "there is no complete destruction of Jerusalem at
the end of the age as Zechariah 14:1-3 indicates that the city is in existence although
overtaken by war at the very moment that Christ comes back in power and glory.
Accordingly, it is probably better to consider all of verse 26 fulfilled historically."
The subject of this sentence is "the people," not "the prince who is to come." Thus, it
is the people of the prince who is to come that destroys the city and the sanctuary.
We have already identified the people as the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem and
the temple in a.d. 70 under the leadership of Titus. Yet, I believe that the prince who
is to come is a reference to the yet to come Antichrist. Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost
explains,
The ruler who will come is that final head of the Roman
Empire, the little horn of 7:8. It is significant that the people of
the ruler, not the ruler himself, will destroy Jerusalem. Since he
will be the final Roman ruler, the people of that ruler must be
the Romans themselves.
The coming prince cannot be a reference to Christ, since He is said to be "cut off" in
the prior sentence. This prince has to be someone who comes after Christ. The only
two viable possibilities is that it could either refer to a Roman prince who destroyed
Jerusalem in a.d. 70 or a future Antichrist.
Why should we not see the prince who is to come as a reference to Titus who led
the Roman conquest in a.d. 70? Because the emphasis of this verse is upon "the
people," not the subordinate clause "the prince who is to come." This passage is
apparently stated this way so that this prophecy would link the Roman destruction
with the a.d. 70 event, but at the same time setting up the Antichrist to be linked to
the final week of years to the first "he" in verse 27. He is not described as the prince
coming with the people, but instead a detached and distant description, as one who
is coming. This suggests that the people and the prince will not arrive in history
together. Dr. Steven Miller adds, "but v. 27 makes clear that this ‘ruler’ will be the
future persecutor of Israel during the seventieth seven. ‘The people of the rule’ does
not mean that the people ‘belong to’ the ruler but rather that the ruler will come
from these people." Interestingly our amillennial friends agree that this is a
reference to the Antichrist as noted by Robert Culver:
Neither is there any difficulty with our amillennial friends over
the identity of "the coming prince," . . . Keil and Leupold
recognize him as the final Antichrist, said to be "coming"
because already selected for prophecy in direct language in
chapter 7 as "the little horn," and in type in chapter 8 as "the
little horn." Young thinks otherwise but is outweighed on his
own "team."
Its End Will Come With A Flood
This final sentence of verse 26 also occurs during the interval between the sixty-
ninth and seventieth weeks. However, the first part, "its end will come with a
flood," refers back to the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, while the final phrase,
"even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined," is being fulfilled
throughout the entire period (2,000 years thus far) of the interval.
"The antecedent of ‘it’ is obviously Jerusalem," explains Leon Wood. "’Flood’ or
‘overflowing’ can refer only to the degree of destruction meted out. History records
that the destruction of Jerusalem was very extensive." The war and desolations that
began with the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 would continue throughout the
interval leading up to the seventieth week. In fact, this language appears to parallel
that of Luke 21:24, which says, "and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will
be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the
Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Charles Feinberg agrees:
The final words of verse 26 sum up the history of Israel since
a.d. 70: "desolations are determined." Surely the determined
wars and desolations have come upon them (cf. Luke 21:24).
Such has been the lot of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, and
such will be the portion, until the "time of the Gentiles" have
been fulfilled.
Dr. Pentecost adds the following:
But that invasion, awesome as it was, did not end the nation’s
sufferings, for war, Gabriel said, would continue until the end.
Even though Israel was to be set aside, she would continue to
suffer until the prophecies of the 70 "sevens" were completely
fulfilled. Her sufferings span the entire period from the
destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 to Jerusalem’s deliverance
from Gentile dominion at the Second Advent of Christ.
Conclusion
Once again we see that a plain, straightforward reading of the text of the Bible
provides a clear and convincing understanding that there is a biblical basis for
halting God’s clock between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. Robert Culver
summarizes our findings as follows:
All attempts to place the events of verse 26 (the cutting off of
Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem) in either the period of
the sixty-two weeks (Keil and Leupold) or in the seventieth
week (Young and a host of writers in the past) stumble and fall
on the simple language of the text itself. It seems that a more
natural interpretation is the one that regards the events of verse
26 as belonging to a period between the sixty-ninth and
seventieth weeks, when God has sovereignly set aside His
people Israel, awaiting a time of resumption of covenant
relationship in the future, after Israel has been restored to the
land.
Thus, with each passing article, as we plod through the text of Daniel 9:24-27, we
find that critics such as Dr. Kenneth Gentry’s complaints fall silent to the ground.
Only hermeneutical gymnastics, a suspension of sound reason,
and an a priori commitment to the dispensational system
allows the importing of a massive gap into Daniel’s prophecy.
Such ideas interrupt the otherwise chronologically exact time-
frame.
Sorry Dr. Gentry, but the text of Daniel itself demands a gap of time. Maranatha!
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
Part IX
by Thomas Ice
Our study of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy now moves to the final verse in the
passage, which also deals with the final week of years.
And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week,
but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and
grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one
who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one
that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.
(Daniel 9:27)
In this installment I will provide further reasons for a time-gap between the sixty-
nine and seventieth weeks and note features from the text that support the
interpretation that this seven-year period is the yet to come tribulation period.
Antichrist or Christ?
Right off the bat, the first question that arises in verse 27 is to whom does the
pronoun "he" refer to? I believe that "he" must refer to "the prince who is to come"
in verse 26. However, opponents of literal interpretation disagree. Preterist, Dr.
Kenneth Gentry says, "[T]he indefinite pronoun ‘he’ does not refer back to ‘the
prince who is to come’ of verse 26." Fellow preterist, Gary DeMar, insists "it is Jesus
who ‘will make a firm covenant with the many,’ not the antichrist." Yet, such an
errant interpretation violates the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew text.
In Hebrew grammar, as with most languages, a pronoun would refer to the nearest
antecedent, unless there was a contextual reason to think otherwise. In this instance,
the nearest antecedent in agreement with "he" is "the prince who is to come" in
verse 26. This is recognized by a majority of scholars, including a number of
amillennialists such as Kiel and Leupold. Only a priori theological bias could lead a
trained interpreter of Scripture to any other conclusion. Robert Culver explains the
correct meaning of this text as follows:
The ordinary rules of grammar establish that the leading actor
of this verse is the Antichrist, the great evil man of the end
time. . . . If the pronoun "he" were present in the Hebrew, a case
might possibly be made for the introduction of an entirely new
personality into the story at this point. However, there is no
pronoun; only the third masculine singular form of the verb
indicates that an antecedent is to be sought, and that of
necessity in the preceding context. Usually, the last preceding
noun that agrees in gender and number and agrees with the
sense is the antecedent. This is unquestionably . . . "the coming
prince" of verse 26. He is a "coming" prince, that is, one whom
the reader would already know as a prince to come, because he
is the same as the "little horn" on the fourth beast of chapter 7.
Leon Wood provides a list of further reasons for taking the "he" in verse 27 as a
reference to "the prince who is to come" of verse 26.
Second, as noted above, the unusual manner of mention in
verse twenty-six regarding that prince calls for just such a
further reference as this. There is no reason for the earlier
notice unless something further is to be said regarding him, for
he does nothing nor plays any part in activities there described.
Third, several matters show that what is now said regarding
the one in reference does not suit if that reference is to Christ.
(a) This person makes a "firm covenant" with people, but Christ
made no covenant. God made a Covenant of Grace with
people, and Christ fulfilled requirements under it, but this is
quite different from Christ's making a covenant. (b) Even if
Christ had made a covenant with people during His lifetime,
the idea of mentioning it only here in the overall thought of the
passage would be unusual, when the subjects of His death and
even the destruction of Jerusalem have already been set forth.
(c) The idea of the seventieth week, here closely associated with
this one, does not fit the life or ministry of Christ, as will be
shown presently. (d) The idea that this one causes "sacrifice
and offering to cease" does not fit in reference to Christ in this
context. The amillennial view holds that these words refer to
Christ's supreme sacrifice in death, which made all other
sacrifices and offerings of no further use, thus making them to
cease in principle. But, if so, what would be the reason for such
a statement (true as it is) in view of the purpose of the overall
prediction? One could understand a direct statement
concerning Christ's providing atonement for sin—though its
placing at this point in the general thought order the passage
would be strange—because that would be important to sin-
bondaged Israelites. But why, if that is the basic thought,
should it be expressed so indirectly, in terms of sacrificing and
offering being made to cease?
It is safe to conclude that the immediate context of this passage and the book as a
whole supports our understanding of this matter. This interpretation would also
support a futurist understanding of verse 27.
The Making of a Covenant
What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "make a firm covenant with the
many for one week," that is seven years. Non-literal interpreters of Daniel’s
seventy-week prophecy usually attempt to make this covenant a reference to
Christ’s covenant to save His people, usually known as the covenant of grace. "This,
then, is a confirming of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s
redemptive grace that Christ confirms (Rom. 15:8)," claims Dr. Gentry. Dr. Gentry
and those advocating a similar view, must resort to a non-textual, theological
interpretation at this point since there was no seven-year covenant made by Christ
with the Jewish people at the time of His first coming. They must back off from the
specifics of the text in verse 27 and import in a theological interpretation, thus
providing us with a classic example of spiritualization or allegorical interpretation.
If this is supposed to be a reference to the covenant of grace, then "it may be
observed first that this would be a strange way to express such a thought," notes Dr.
Wood. Christ’s salvation covenant is not limited to seven years rather it is an eternal
covenant. Daniel 9:27 says the covenant is to be made with "the many." This term
always refers in some way to Israel throughout the book of Daniel (Daniel 11:33, 39;
12:3). Thus it is a narrow term, used in a specific context. It is not a broad term,
synonymous with the language of global salvation. Further, "it is evident that the
covenant is subsequent to the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of the City
and the Sanctuary, in the twenty-sixth verse; therefore, it could not have been
confirmed at the First Advent," says G. H. Pember. Such an interpretation does not
fit this text and it does not account for the seven years that Gabriel says this
covenant will be in place. Dr. Wood further explains:
Since the word for "covenant" . . . does not carry the article
(contrary to the kjv translation), this covenant likely is made at
this time for the first time (not a reaffirmation of an old one,
then) and probably will concern some type of nonaggression
treaty, recognizing mutual rights. Israel’s interest in such a
treaty is easy to understand in the light of her desire today for
allies to help withstand foes such as Russia and the Arab bloc
of nations.
Since a covenant as described in verse 27 has not yet taken place in reference to the
nation of Israel, it must therefore follow that this will be a yet to occur future event.
This then, demands a postponement of the seventieth week with a gap of time
between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of years.
For One Week
This passage clearly says that the length of the covenant that "he" will make will be
for one week or seven years. I suppose that this could mean either that the covenant
will be predetermined to last seven years or that it does not specify a length of time
when made, but as it turns out, is only in existence for seven years. Many of those
who believe that the entire prophecy of the seventy weeks has already been fulfilled
around the time of Christ’s first coming teach that the first half of the seventieth
week was fulfilled by Christ’s ministry. "We know Christ’s three-and-one-half-year
ministry," says Dr. Gentry, "was decidedly focused on the Jews in the first half of
the seventieth week (Matt. 10:5b; cf. Matt. 15:24)." G. H. Pember objects to such a
view with the following:
if the Messiah could be the subject, and the time that of the
First Advent, we should then be plunged into the greatest
perplexity; for the Lord did none of the things that are
mentioned in the twenty-seventh verse. To fulfil that part of the
prophecy, He must have made a covenant with the majority of
the Jewish people for seven years, neither more nor less. But
there is no hint of such a covenant in the Gospels. And, indeed,
one of the prophets has intimated to us, that the Lord, just
before His death, suspended all His relations with the Jews,
and through them with the whole of the Twelve Tribes. This
exactly corresponds to the suspension of His dealings with the
Jews at the close of the Four Hundred and Eighty-third Year,
and to the facts of history. Still further, the very next verse of
Zechariah carries us over the interval, and brings us face to face
with the Prince that shall come, the Anti-christ, who will make
the seven years' covenant on pretence of being the Shepherd of
Israel. Lastly, Christ did not cause sacrifice and offering to
cease, when He suffered without the gate: the Temple-services
were carried on for nearly forty years longer.
Conclusion
Once again we have seen in this installment on the seventy weeks that the text of
this passage supports a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. It
is becoming increasingly obvious that the seventieth week is still future to the time
in which we now live. "Israel has now been reestablished as a nation (1948),
suggesting that the seventieth seven may soon begin." Maranatha!
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
Part X
by Thomas Ice
Gabriel divides his prophecy of seventy weeks of years to Daniel into three sections:
seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. The final week of years—seven years
—is detailed in Daniel 9:27. Previously I dealt with the first part of verse 27, "And
he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week." This time I will be
focusing upon the rest of verse 27, which says, "but in the middle of the week he
will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will
come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is
decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." This verse tells us what will
happen during the final week of years, which I believe to be a yet future seven year
period often called the tribulation.
In the Middle of the Week
Since the week of years is a seven-year period, the middle of a week of years would
be three and a half years into the seven-year period. Interestingly, Daniel 7:25 and
12:7 both refer to a three and a half year period (time, times, and half a time). The
context of both passages speak of the future time of the antichrist or the beast. This
would support a futurist understanding of the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27.
Daniel 7:25 says, "And he will speak out against the Most High and wear down the
saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in
law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." While
this passage was given to Daniel before he received the revelation of chapter nine, it
seems clear that the logic for the chronology of Daniel 7:25 is drawn from the
seventy weeks prophecy of chapter nine. Daniel 12:7 reads as follows: "And I heard
the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his
right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it
would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the
power of the holy people, all these events will be completed." Both Daniel 9:27 and
12:7 speak of the antichrist’s rule coming to an end at the conclusion of the same
three and a half year period. This supports the notion that they both refer to a yet
future time that we often call the Great Tribulation. Dr. John Whitcomb notes,
This important prophetic statement clearly refers to the same
time units as previously described in the end-time activities of
the Antichrist ("little horn") of Daniel 7, where "he will intend
to make alterations in times and in law; and they [the saints]
will be given into his hands for a time, times, and half a time"
(7:25). The clarification provided here is that the three-and-one-
half-year period at the beginning of which Antichrist "shall
cause a covenant [with the many] to be made strong" (literal
translation). Then, for some unexplained reason, "in the
middle" of this final seven-year period "he will put a stop to
sacrifice [zebâh, bloody sacrifices] and grain offering [minhah,
non-bloody sacrifices]."
Allegorical Alchemy
This past weekend, I attended a conference in which my friend Hal Lindsey spoke.
He used a phrase that I think applies to non-literal interpreters like Gary DeMar
and Dr. Kenneth Gentry who do not provide a textual interpretation of this
passage. They are rightly called "allegorical alchemist," because they try to brew-up
interpretations from out of thin air by just stating and then declaring them to be
true. In Daniel 9:27 they attempt a topical approach, selecting a word or two from
the passage and declaring that "Daniel’s famous prophecy finds fulfillment in the
first century of our era." DeMar is even more bizarre in his alchemy when he
teaches:
As the result of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, they would lose
their inheritance. This would not occur for another forty years
(Matt. 21:33-46; 22:1-14). Similarly, Jesus pronounced the
temple "desolate" when He walked out of it even though its
destruction did not come for another forty year (23:38). In
principle, it was a "done deal" when He turned His back on the
temple. It is no wonder that Jesus described the temple as "your
house" (23:38). The temple’s destruction was a consequence, a
result, of the apostate Jews’ rejection of Jesus (see 2 Sam. 13:32;
Job 14:15; Isa. 10:22; Lam. 2:8; Luke 22:22). . . .
. . . The sentence is determined on one day while the sentence
may not be carried out until some time in the future. In similar
fashion, we are told that the destruction of Jerusalem was
"determined" within the seventy weeks while the sentence was
not carried out until forty years later.
In response to Dr. Gentry’s claim that Daniel 9:27 refers to Christ’s salvation
covenant see my previous installment of this series (Part IX). Dr. J. Dwight
Pentecost further explains:
This covenant could not have been made or confirmed by
Christ at His First Advent, . . . because : (a) His ministry did not
last seven years, (b) His death did not stop sacrifices and
offerings, (c) He did not set up "the abomination that causes
desolation" (Matt. 24:15). Amillenarians suggest that Christ
confirmed (in the sense of fulfilling) the Abrahamic Covenant
but the Gospels give no indication He did that in His First
Advent.
What Dr. Gentry says just does not explain Daniel 9:27 in context. When one’s
interpretation cannot explain the details of a passage, then an allegorical alchemist,
like Dr. Gentry, will take words or phrases out of context and place them into a
different context so that, to some, it appears that he has explained the passage. Yet,
he has nothing of the sort and this a clear example of his interpretative slight of
hand. The text of verse 27 is simple not explained by Dr. Gentry’s statements.
In a way, DeMar’s explanation is even worse than his partner in crime—Dr. Gentry.
While verse 27 clearly says that the events to which it speaks will take place within
the seven-year period, DeMar changes the meaning to simply mean "determine."
Verse 27 says that in the middle of the seven-year period "he will put a stop to
sacrifice and grain offering." This is the language of something that is to actually
take place. This is not the language of something that someone is proposing to do
later. The final part of verse 27 says, "and on the wing of abominations will come
one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is
poured out on the one who makes desolate." How is this just a proposal of what has
been determined, when passage clearly says that this will take place within the
timeframe?
The Abomination of Desolation
Verse 27 says that in the middle of the week (three and a half years), "on the wing of
abominations will come one who makes desolate." Here we have a reference to the
Antichrist who will do something to desecrate the Temple. This did not happen
near the time of Christ’s first coming. If it did, then what event was it? If it
happened in a.d. 70, as some might say, then it could not have happened within the
time-span of the seventy weeks of years by anyone’s calculation. Yet, Jesus said in
Matthew 24:15, "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was
spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader
understand)." Here we have the interpretation of Jesus concerning the event Gabriel
describes to Daniel in 9:27. The event has to be future to the time of Christ, and
since nothing like it corresponds to within seven years of His prediction then we
have to see this as a yet future event. Thus, another reason for a gap or
postponement of time between the sixty-ninth week of years and the seventieth
week. Posttribulationist Dr. Robert Gundry notes:
Moreover, to place the complete fulfillment of the seventieth
week at a.d. 70 or before severs the obvious connection
between Daniel 9, Matthew 24, and Revelation. (Compare "in
the middle of the week" [Dan. 9:27], forty-two month and 1,260
days [Rev. 11:2; 12:6; 13:5], and time, times, and half a time
[Dan. 12:7; 7:25; Rev. 12:14]. Under the historical view, if the
relationship between Daniel and Revelation were retained,
Revelation, which was written probably a quarter century after
the destruction of Jerusalem, would be history instead of the
prophecy it purports to be.
A Complete Destruction
The latter part of verse 27 says, "even until a complete destruction, one that is
decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." Once again, when did this
happen in conjunction with Christ’s first advent. It did not! Therefore, another
reason to see this as a yet future event when the Antichrist will be destroyed at the
second coming of Christ, which will bring to an end the seventieth week of years.
In another interpretation put forth by Gary DeMar that violates the clear statements
of the biblical text, he sees the abomination of desolation taking place in a.d. 70.
The abomination of desolation is mentioned in one Old
Testament book (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). . . . There was no
doubt in the minds of those who read and understood Jesus’
words in Matthew 24:15 that the abomination of desolation
prophecy was fulfilled in events leading up to the temple’s
destruction in a.d. 70.
In addition to the problem that an a.d. 70 fulfillment does not fit into anyone’s
scheme of the seventy weeks of years, none of the Romans, such as Titus, could be
said to have been destroyed after performing the supposed deed. Dr. Randall Price
rebuts such an approach with the following:
However, historically, no known Roman leader ever "made a
covenant with the Jewish leaders . . . for seven years, and so
this awaits future fulfillment when seventieth wee commences.
. . . However, if this is applied to the Romans in their crushing
the Jewish Revolt in a.d. 70, the how was the Roman empire
punished at this point, since the fall of the empire itself was still
several hundred years away?
Conclusion
It is obvious that these events of verse 27 did not take place at or in conjunction
with Christ’s first coming in the first century a.d. A gap between the sixty-ninth and
seventieth week is needed because it is what the text intended to make this
prophecy work out in history with the exact precision that our Lord intends. It is a
shame that some let theological bias prevent them from seeing this, and many other
passages, as God intended them when He revealed them to His prophets. No other
approach works and when one takes the final week of years literally then this
harmonizes with hundreds of other verses that speak of the tribulation period that
will lead up to the defeat of Christ’s enemies and the victory of our Lord. Hopefully
these events are just on the horizon. Maranatha!
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
Part XI
by Thomas Ice
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes
In this final installment on the seventy weeks of Daniel, I want to deal with the
history of the church’s interpretation of it. What has the church believed about this
passage down through the years. One of the main reasons for spending time on this
matter is that some have said that our view that sees a gap of time between the
sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel is a recent development in church
history. Truth of the matter is that it is the oldest known view in church history.
Read on and see.
Recent Development Charges
Over the last few years, I have come to expect outburst against all aspects of the
literal interpretation of Scripture from preterists who believe that Bible prophecy is
a think of the past. They come through in predicable fashion concerning this issue
of the historical interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.
Gary DeMar is perhaps the most strident on this issue when he says, "nearly all
Bible scholars agree that the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy refer to the
time up to Jesus’ crucifixion, only dispensationalists believe that the entire
seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled." In a later edition of the same book, DeMar
asserts concerning a non-gap view that it "has been the standard interpretation for
centuries, except for minor differences in details. John Nelson Darby and other
changed all this with their church-parenthesis hypothesis." After the first sentence
of DeMar’s statement, he footnotes a reference to an errant source on the matter,
Philip Mauro, who declares the following: "Nor, so far as we are aware, was any
other meaning ever put upon them until within recent years, and then only by those
belonging to a particular ‘school’ of interpretation." Of course, Mauro’s recent
"school" is reference to those of us who see a future seventieth week in Daniel’s
prophecy. Mauro certainly was not aware of what was taught in the early church,
as we shall shortly see.
Preterist, Dr. Kenneth Gentry, speaking of his non-gap interpretation insists that
"Conservative scholars widely agree on such an interpretation, which is virtually
‘universal among Christian exegetes’—excluding dispensationalists." Later, Dr.
Gentry continues his inaccurate statements by saying "that the early Father held to a
non-eschatological interpretation of the Seventieth Week." This is just not true, as
shall be noted below. Now I will examine just what the early church did believe
about the seventy weeks of Daniel.
Early Church Views
The main point for which I am looking into the early church view of Daniel’s
seventy weeks prophecy is whether they held to a gap between the sixty-ninth and
seventieth weeks of years. Interestingly, an article of note was done on this subject,
published in a Reformed Journal, which is the general theological orbit of Gary
DeMar and Dr. Kenneth Gentry. The article was written by Louis E. Knowles and
referenced errantly by Dr. Gentry when he said, "that the early Father held to a non-
eschatological interpretation of the Seventieth Week." Dr. Gentry’s statement is
clearly in error when compared with the writings of the early church fathers.
The earliest extant writings of the church fathers reveal just the opposite of Dr.
Gentry’s claim, with the exception of The Epistle of Barnabas (about a. d. 90-100),
which presents a short and incomplete treatment on the subject. Knowles divides
the early church (Barnabas through Augustine) into two interpretive groups, "the
eschatological and the historical." By eschatological, Knowles refers to those who
took the seventieth week of Daniel as future prophecy leading up to Christ’s return.
By historical, he means those who believe that Daniel’s final week has already been
fulfilled. Knowles concludes that Barnabas "envisioned the completion of all the
weeks before the development of the church."
When Knowles deals with the next major contributors—Irenaeus (130-200) and his
disciple Hippolytus (170-236)—he describes their views as "undoubtedly the
forerunners of the modern dispensational interpreters of the Seventy Weeks."
Knowles draws the following conclusion about Irenaeus and Hippolytus:
. . . we may say that Irenaeus presented the seed of an idea that
found its full growth in the writings of Hippolytus. In the
works of these fathers, we can find most of the basic concepts
of the modern futuristic view of the seventieth week of Daniel
ix. That they were dependent to some extent upon earlier
material is no doubt true. Certainly we can see the influence of
pre-Christian Jewish exegesis at times, but, by and large, we
must regard them as the founders of a school of interpretation,
and in this lies their significance for the history of exegesis.
Thus, it is clear "that in Irenaeus and Hippolytus we have the originators of that
method of interpretation that places the seventieth week of Daniel at the time of the
consummation."
Although, Irenaeus does not explicitly spell out a gap in his writings, there is no
other way that he could have come up with his view of a future tribulation period
of at least at least three and a half years. Irenaeus speaks of how "three years and six
months constitute the half-week" in his section on the prophecy of Daniel 9. This is
why Knowles says that in Irenaeus "we have the basic concept for a futuristic
construction of the Seventy Weeks, viz., the position of the last week at the end of
the age." Hippolytus, Irenaeus’ pupil is even clearer.
Hippolytus is the first known person in the history of the church to write a
commentary on any book of the Bible, and he wrote on Daniel. "Hippolytus give us
the first attempt at detailed interpretation of the Seventy Weeks," observes
Knowles. "He is dependent, no doubt, upon Irenaeus for the foundational
proposition that the last half-week of the seventy is to be connected with the
Antichrist, but the detailed development is not found in Irenaeus." In fact,
Hippolytus refers to a gap or, in his words "division," multiple times. Hippolytus
says,
For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ
is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times
being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the
last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of
it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz.,
Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world.
Le Roy Froom grudgingly admits that "Hippolytus . . . arbitrarily separates by a
chronological gap from the preceding sixty-nine weeks, placing it just before the
end of the world." "Certainly Hippolytus’ interpretation does not have the
refinements of the later development, but it is the direct ancestor of it," concludes
Knowles.
Other Views
There were a number of others in the early church, up till the time of Augustine
(354-430), who spoke about the subject of the seventy weeks prophecy found in
Daniel 9. Jerome (340–420) in his commentary on Daniel is reluctant to set forth his
own interpretation of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy, "because it is unsafe to pass
judgment upon the opinions of the great teachers of the Church and to set one
above another." So Jerome simply records the various views up till his time. The
first view that Jerome cites is that of Africanus (160-240), who does not mention a
gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, but does, like early gap
proponents "definitely views this passage as eschatological and decidedly
Messianic." Thus, Africanus fits into the eschatological camp, making him closer to
the futurist gap position, and not the historical.
Eusebius (270-340), the father of church history, teaches an historical view, but he
places a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. Knowles
explains:
In regards to the last week, we have some rather distinct views
in Eusebius. We must recall that the last week does not follow
immediately upon the sixty-ninth, but comes after the
‘indeterminate space of time’ in which the events of vs. 26 are
being fulfilled. This last week, then, covers a period of seven
years that extend from three and one-half years before the
crucifixion to three and one-half years after it.
Knowles speaks of a writer named Hesychius whom Augustine refers to as an
opponent of his historical fulfillment view. "Hesychius has questioned Augustine
about the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks, and seems to be an adherent of the
futurist school of interpretation." Thus, it is clear that even in the early fifth century
there are still proponents of the eschatological and futurist schools of interpretation
of Daniel’s seventieth week. "We have seen the formation of two definite schools of
interpretation. . . ." notes Knowles. "All the later developments in Christian
literature will be found to fit into one of these categories."
Conclusion
In one sense it does not matter what others who have come before our current
generation think on an issue, since in reality a matter rises or falls upon whether it
squares with God’s Word. However, in another sense it does matter what others
have thought down through church history, since if something is taught in the Bible
then it may be legitimate to ask why others have not understood a particular
teaching. While there are a number of doctrines that have gone well over a
thousand years before members of Christ’s church have come to realize what was
there in Scripture all along, the necessary gap of time between the sixty-ninth and
seventieth weeks of Daniel is not one of those late teachings. Why opponents of a
future seventieth week of Daniel want to make matters worse for themselves by
saying that we do not have ancient historical precedent is beyond me. It is obvious
that our futurist view was found early and often throughout the early church, and
only became scarce when premillennialism was banded from the medieval church
as a result of the influence of Augustine and Jerome. "But the saints shall never
possess an earthly kingdom," declares Jerome, "but only a heavenly. Away, then,
with the fable about a millennium!" With Jerome’s banishment of early
premillennialism went the literal interpretation of prophecy. History would have to
wait more than a thousand years for the revival of a literal interpretation of Bible
prophecy and the literal approach to the seventieth week of Daniel. Maranatha!
Endnotes
Link to Word document containing footnotes